p^ 




■SH 




E 473 
.54 
.E956 
Copy 1 



LETTER 



OF THE ^ 



HOI. THOMAS Ewma 



TO 



HIS EXCELLENCY BENJ. STANTON, 

LIEUT. GOVERXOa OF OmO, 



In Answer to his letter of Nov. 4, Relative to Cliarges Against our Generals 
who fought the Battle of Shiloh, on the dth of April 1862. 



B. NEVINS, PEINTER, COLUMBUS, 0. 



? 

Lancaster, 0., Nov. 1, 1862. 

His Excellency Benj. Stanton, Lieut. Oovernor of Ohio : 

Sir: — I have just received, in the Mac-a-cheek Press of the 
I'^th inst,, your letter of the 4th, and will reply to it through 
the same paper. You express surprise that you should be 
singled out and replied to, when so many others joined in 
giving currency to the same charges. In this you underrate 
the value of your name and official position. You were 
worthy of a reply — the anonymous correspondents of news- 
papers were not. In one other instance, and one only, I met 
with the name of a respectable mortal man appended to the 
charges. I addressed a letter to him, (he was an editor,) giv- 
ing such facts as I then, had in contradiction, which he pub- 
lished with comments, referring to your report and letter as 
unquestionable authority. As far as I know, all the pub- 
lished accusations, which appeared in the papers Tor months 
after the battle, were founded on the letters of anonymous 
correspondents of the press, and on your report and letter. 
You intimate that you gave up the question of surprise in 
your letter to General Sherman. I do not so understand it. 
You waivCj but do not disavow. It was, in fact, the whole 
original charge, " that the disasters of that day were ike result of 
surprise^ which is justly chargeable to the commanding officer.''^ 
" That our lines were so carelessly and negligently guarded that 
the enemy ivere absclutely on us, in our very tents, before the offi- 
cers in command were aware of their approach.^'' If you had 
disaowed this distinctly, instead of half admitting its false- 



hood, and at the same time parading your proofs to establisli 
its truth^ I certainly would not have troubled you or the pub- 
lic with the matter. But you asserted it on what you pro- 
nounced sufficient evidence. You say the public mind is so 
possessed with the belief, that I (with such powers as you 
kindly impute to me) cannot remove it ; and in that state of 
things you propose not to yield but to waive the question, and 
go on to discuss the generalship in the encampment and on 
the field of battle. On this new issue you call in a new wit- 
ness, Col. Thos. Worthington. As I decline the new issue 
until the first is settled, I need say little of the witness. 
You say, in substance, that, under certain conditions, you are 
in the habit of departing from the issue pending, and follow- 
ing out such new ones as may be tendered; and present your 
example as worthy of imitation. My habit is different, and I 
cannot change it. I choose, if possible, to settle the questions 
under discussion before I take up new ones. I may be wrong; 
but, in my opinion, sound and definite conclusions are better 
arrived at in that way, and confusion more certainly avoided. 

You charge me with garbling Col. D. Stewart's report. 
This is not so. You are misled by a typographical blunder 
in punctuation in the official document, such as often occurs 
when the proof is not revised by the writer, and you would 
have corrected the error at a glance if you had remembered 
the rules on the subject, laid down by the fathers of the law. 

There are two sentences out of which the sense is to be 
elicited — written together they are : 

"The disposition of my pickets was reported to and ap- 
proved by Gen, Sherman at 7^ o'clock on Sunday morning 
I received a verbal message from Gen. Prentiss that the 
enemy were in his front in force." 

Now this must be divided into two sentences. The type- 
setter at Washington, the writer being a thousand miles off. 



has done it by placing the period after the word " morning." 
No one who reads or copies the paper should regard that if it 
involves an absurdity. You doubtless know, for you have 
had more experience in printing speeches than in planting 
pickets and marshaling armies, how much a writer or speaker 
sometimes suffers when he finds himself in print, not having 
had an opportunity to revise the proof; and that, most espe- 
cially, in the article of punctuation. The rule on the subject 
is well, though somewhat quaintly, expressed by the Supreme 
Court of the U. S. in the case of Ewing vs Burnet^ 11 Peters, 
64 . They say : 

"Panctuation is a most fallible standard by which to inter- 
pret a writing ; it may be resorted to when all other means 
fail ; but the court will first take the instrument by its four 
corners in order to ascertain its true meaning; if that is ap- 
parent on judicially inspecting the whole, the punctuation will 
not be suffered to change it." 

You will therefore see that, according to the highest author- 
ity, I had a right to divide those two sentences according to 
my judgment of their true sense, and if I could do that with- 
out calling to my aid the printer's punctuation, I had a right 
to disregard it. And even if you think, according to your 
notions of military routine, that I mistook the sense, and that 
the officer, who planted the pickets at night, was regularly 
making his report in the morning after the pickets were attacked 
and driaen in^ and while the General to whom he made his 
report was mounted with his staff going to reconnoitre the 
advancing enemy, you will still, I think, admit that I might 
possibly differ from you; and I will rely on you to say to 
the " evil-minded person" of whom you have darkly hinted, 
that I had a right to believe that such report was not made 
at that time and place, and under those circumstances, and, 
therefore, that the date did not apply to the making of the 



6 

report, but to the message from General Prentiss. You wil^ 
say to him also that in copying it was incumbent on me to 
divide the two sentences, so as to give what I understood to 
be the true meaning of the writer. I divided the sentences 
thus : 

"The disposition of my pickets was reported to and ap- 
proved by Gen. Sherman. At 7^ o'clock on Sunday morn- 
ing I received a verbal message from Gen. Prentiss that the 
enemy were in his front in force." 

You also find an omission in my extract from General Sher- 
man's report. In this you are correct, but as it does not affect 
the same in the slightest degree, it was hardly worthy of your 
notice. It being a pleonism, and the sense not at all changed 
by it, I had failed to discover it. The sentence in which it 
occurs is this : 

"About 8 A.M. I saw the glistening bayonets of heavy 
masses of infantry to our left front, in the woods along the 
small stream alluded to, and became satisfied for the first time, 
that the enemy designed a determined attack on our whole 
camp." 

The above, italicised, are the words omitted. Every one 
acquainted with language knows that if General Sherman 
'■'■lecame satisfied" at 8 o'clock of the design of the enemy, 
it was "/or the first time^^'' for he could not then " hecome satis- 
fied" of a thing of which he was satisfied just before. So if 
the evil-minded and suspicious person you refer to should 
suggest anything to my disadvantage because of this, say thus 
much to him, and add that the words being wholly immate- 
rial, neither adding to nor taking from the sense, would prob- 
ably cause their omission by one not an habitual copyist. Say 
to him also that there could be no possible motive for the 
omission, and that you, having discovered it, could make no 
use of it, except to point it out, and say that it was ^^ unfortu- 
nate.''^ 



To prove surprise, you quote from a book or pamphlet 
witten by a Mr. Stevenson, who was in the rebel army. It 
was written for sale, as was also Scott's Marmion ; but neither 
his account of the battle of Shiloh, nor Scott's of Flodden 
Field, imparts absolute verity. Neither could even be allowed 
to go in evidence in an ordinary civil action in a court of 
justice. 

You say that the difference between your statement of the 
distance which the rebels encamped on the night of the 5th — 
" not more than a mile or a mile and a half,^^ and the actual dis- 
tance — a little more than three miles — is immaterial. I think 
otherwise. The one is ti-ue, the other is false — the truth places 
his encampment beyond the distance to which, according to 
military usage, our pickets ought to have been extended — the 
falsehood within it. It is therefore of the utmost importance 
on the very point in issue. 

To make good your assertion, you must not only show 
that the army was surprised and slaughtered in their tents, 
but that the Grenerals, whom you accused, did not use the 
means which were in their power to prevent surprise. The 
reconnoisancs by the two parties sent by their Generals, the 
afternoon and night before the battle, you tacitly admit to have 
been sufficient. They stationed six companies as picket- 
guards. Was not this sufficient ? The largest number that 
I remember to have met with, in casual reading, was seven 
companies ; and that from an army of one hundred thousand 
men. The reconnoisance three miles beyond the camp, at 3 
o'clock A. M., would seem to be all that could be devised for 
additional morning watch. 

But Gen. Sherman did not know until 8 o'clock whether it 
was a mere demonstration or an attack in force. How could 
he know ? He ordered his men in line of battle, as he would 
have done had he known there would be an attack in force, 



gave word to the Generals of divisions in his rear, and then 
went himself to reconnoitre. A battery opened upon him 
when at the distance of 500 yards in front of his line, and 
his Orderly fell. The spot could not well be mistaken. 
Such was the preparation made to guard against a surprise ; 
and I pronounce it sufficient. Indeed, how was it possible 
any one in the camp could be surprised in his tent, when a 
sharp battle of outposts had been going on for three hours? 

You say the surprise took place in Col. Hildebrand's 
brigade, stationed near Shiloh Meeting-house, on the Corinth 
road, I am glad that you for once present a definite point, 
for all has heretofore been loose and floating ; and here you 
make your case out of a vague statement in Col. Hildebrand's 
report, in which he does not intimate surprise, but shows that 
he formed and moved forward to find the enemy, and found 
him 300 yards in advance of his color line. Let us look at 
his report, connected with his surroundings. 

The center of Gen. Sherman's command was the Shiloh 
Meeting-house, on the Corinth road; and just in the rear of 
this was his marquee or tent. Col. Buckland's brigade was 
on his right; Col. Hildebrand's on his left; the left wing of 
one and the right wing of the other resting on the road, 
equally advanced. Col. Buckland on his side of the road 
was not surprised. Between 6 and 7 o'clock he was informed 
that our pickets were fired upon. He immediately formed 
his brigade on color line (right up to Col. Hildebrand's right, 
at the road). Hearing that the pickets were being driven in' 
he ordered Col. Sullivan to advance in support of the pickets, 
which he did, but discovered that the enemy had advanced 
in force to the creek about 80 or 100 rods in front (where Gen. 
Sherman saw them on his reconnoisance at 8 o'clock) ; he 
then ordered the brigade to advance, marched thirty or forty 
rods, discovered the enemy, and opened fire upon him. This 



9 

took place on Col. Hildebrand's immediate right. Further 
on his right was McDowell, with the 1st brigade. At the 
first alarm in the morning, he formed ; detached two compa" 
nies to defend a bridge ; at 8 o'clock his line was thrown for- 
ward to the brow of the hill ; a residue of the mortar battery 
brought up and planted, and fired several shots on the enemies 
masses not then in line. On Col. Hildebrand's left was Col. 
Stewart, with the 2d brigade ; he was not (as you read him) 
reporting to Gen. Sherman the planting of pickets, which had 
been driven in, but, at 7.^ o'clock, in his place at the head of 
his brigade, received a verbal message from Gen. Prentiss 
that the enemy was in his front in force. Soon afoer, his pick- 
ets sent in word that a force with artillery was advancing on 
the back road ; and in a very short time he discovered the 
Pelican flag advancing in the rear of Gen. Prentiss' head- 
quarters. He arranged his men, went to a convenient point, 
and saw the enemy attempting to plant a battery ; which having 
succeeded in doing, "they opened a fire of shell upon us," j)rob- 
ably the same of which Col. Hildebrand speaks in his report. 
Now where was Col. Hildebrand while the regiments on 
his right were forming and moving to the attack, and Col., 
Stewart's regiment, on his left, was formed, and maneuvering 
to meet the enemy to advantage? He tells us plainly enough. 
He formed and moved forward also, and met the enemy 300 
yards from the color line. You make him say in his report 
what he never intended to say, and never in fact said, by con- 
fining his statement to the order of time, which it does not 
follow; but Gen. Sherman was on the Corinth road, between 
Col. Buckland and Col. Hildebrand, as you say, quietly re- 
ceiving a report from Col. Stewart at 7^ o'clock ; while you 
also say, the enemy was peppering Hildebrand with their 
grape and shells right by his side — neither Gen, Sherman nor 
Col. Buckland nor Col. McDowell knowing anything of it. 



10 

In truth, from that point between Buckland and Ilildebrand, 
then drawn up in order of battle, Gen, Sherman and his staff, 
at 7^ o'clock, rode in front 500 yards to reconnoitre the ene- 
my — perceived that they were advancing to attack — returned 
and gave orders along his line, which advanced to meet the 
enemy. 

You say that the testimonials of the officers, who fought on 
the 7th and not on the 6th, which, in your letter to Gen. 
Sherman, you tauntingly invoked, are none of them, except 
that of Gen. Eosseau, to the point in issue. Surely you mis- 
take. Every one, except Gen. Nelson, covers the whole 
ground ; the conduct of Gen. Sherman on the day — the whole 
day of the battle. Gen. Halleck's last note, after he had re- 
ceived the accusations of Col. Worthington, which you intro- 
duce with so much circumstance,- goes to Gen. Sherman's 
whole conduct while under his command. An "evil-minded 
and suspicious person," if this correspondence should be read 
by such, might possibly think that you never heard an ex- 
pression of opinion from any of the officers referred to, but 
ventured the reference, relying on the jealousy which military 
men too often feel toward each other. 

In your letter to Gen. Sherman you call attention to your 
taste and style, of which you are justly vain. Bold and origi- 
nal, you do not confine yourself to the dull matter of fact of 
common prosers, but indulge in flights which would do credit 
to an epic poet. To prove this, one example will suffice 
You characterize as a veteran of undoubted courage, a cow- 
ardly scamp who was never in but the one battle, and who 
ran at the first fire. You say he cut his way through the 
enemy. A mere vulgar proser, without taste or style, would 
say he cut and ran. You call him '■^ scar-worn.^^ This is 
original — according to common thought and common speech 
war wears soldiers and they are war-worn ; care wears men 



11 

and they are care-worn. Soldiers when their wounds have 
cicatrized wear scars, the scars do not wear ihem. But you 
are not, why should you be, bound by dull common usage, 
when by new phrase you could so happily enrich our lan- 
guage. But whence the scar that wore your veteran ? Not 
from Shiloh, for the woij^ds inflicted there had not had time 
to cicatrize. But I feel that it is impertinent to criticise such 
a fine flight of fancy, especially when we find his clothes 
riddled with grape and cannisier. You do not name your 
Hero — this was judicious — but you were unlucky in selecting 
the regiment, or State to which you assigned him, or in assign- 
ing him to any regiment, or State at all. Scar-worn veteran 
would have been designation enough, and its broad generality 
would have baffled impertinent inquiry. 

Like Homer, who also excelled in taste and style, when you 
introduce your Heroes by name, you give their genealogy. 
You show, among others, that Col. Thos. Worthington is well 
descended. So he is, poor fellow, very well, and well con- 
nected; but this would not have justified Gen. Sherman, 
knowing him as he did, in giving him command of a Brigade — 
nor especially in surrendering to him the command of the 
Division to which in moments of high exaltation he consid- 
ered himself entitled as Senior Graduate. You say that Gen. 
Sherman, by his oppressive conduct, compelled Col. Worth- 
ington to leave the service. You have shown no warrant for 
this accusation — none for the statement. Was it not a court 
martial and not Gen. Sherman, that prevailed on him to 
leave? You are fully advised, and I ask for information. 
I have no doubt Gen. Sherman was kind and patient and for- 
bearing towards Col. Worthington, as far as he might be con- 
sistently with his public duty, surely no further. 

You take great pains to impress the public with the belief 
that Gen. Sherman is rough and rude and churlish to officers 



12 

and men under his command. This cannot be so unless, as 
in the wild story of the German student, he has exchanged 
souls with some one very unlike himself. It cannot be so. 
The shout which arose from his old legion when they met 
him on the battle field of Shiloh, was a tribute coming froTn 
the heart, such as is never paid except to a leader who is kind 
and generous as well as brave. So much for his men. Now 
hear what the officers of the first Brigade under his com- 
mand say of him. The remarks below were made on a sword 
presentation, reported in a late Ilemphis Bulletin : 

" A Merited Testimonial.— On Thursday evening last the 
field and staff officers of the first Brigade, General Morgan L. 
Smith its comander, being in the company, made a call upon 
General Sherman, when Colonel Stuart, in neat and suitable 
terms, expressed the esteem the General's brother officers felt 
for his character as a sterling gentleman, wanting nothing of 
the courtesies and high qualities that term includes — and of his 
conduct as an officer, brave in the face of the foe, affiible in 
official intercourse, chivalrous and self sacrificing as a patriot, 
and abounding in those amenities and generous sentiments that 
dignify life, make intercourse agreeable, soften the asperities 
of the necessary routine, and throw a halo of kindly charity 
around a character never austere, but always ready to cultivate 
the graces that adorn, and the pure pleasures that ameliorate 
the toils of the soldier's career. Those who approached him on 
the present occasion had witnessed his deeds on the field, a 
observed his official action under circumstances of difficulty, 
where sound judgment and temperate councils were necessary, 
and have never found him wanting." 

I am unwilling to part with you, but fear you will again 

count my pages. We naturally tire of long papers, not 

written by ourselves. 

I am very respectfully yours, 

T. EWING. 



iLS^^'^^ ^f" CONGRESS 

iPlil 

013 701 364 2% 



